5 ms·

Calling it a vaccine (like COVID vaccine) is a problem IMO Non-immunizing treatments should not be called vaccines, the annual flu shot should not be consider

Calling it a vaccine (like COVID vaccine) is a problem IMO Non-immunizing treatments should not be called vaccines, the annual flu shot should not be considered a vaccine, nor should the mRNA COVID "vaccine", for which they had to change the very definition of what a vaccine is to even include it for legal purposes. For the flu shot it is a crap shot, as there are soo many flu variants annually they make a best guess as to which one(s) will likely because prominent based on trends and package them up, often they are correct sometimes they are not... For more traditional vaccines like Polio and other long term immunizing vaccines society ends up suffering because of the inclusion of these short term annual or less treatments and over all is a net negative As to " politically weaponized by AI and social media algorithms" it was more than AI and Social media that made these things political, it was the political branches of government that made it so by mandates and rhetoric that pitted people against each other. Attempting to exile people that even questioned their government masters... That is what made it political.

samatman 3y ago
The problem is that they are vaccines, "vaccine" doesn't mean what you think. The best vaccines are sterilizing, meaning that they prevent disease and transmission often enough that very high rates of vaccination extirpate the virus. It might be useful for discussion purposes if "vaccine" meant "sterilizing vaccine" and vaccines which don't work as well had some other name, but that's not how it works.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>"vaccine" doesn't mean what you think. yes they keep changing the definition to include more and more things legally as "vaccines" are shielded from any liability so you can not sue big pharma if they injury with their "vaccine" this however does not change the fact that the way the law (and you) use the term is very very very different than what the ordinary person thinks and understands a vaccine to be When this person then discovers that the government uses a different (your) "correct" definition to include things they traditionally would not think of as a vaccine this erodes trust in the entire system. This was made very very clear with COVID.
  - mikeyouse 3y ago
    Nobody changed any definitions - laymen started becoming interested in the topic due to obvious reasons so the CDC and others clarified some publicly facing websites but nobody involved was remotely confused about the vaccines.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Non-immunizing treatments should not be called vaccines What do you consider immunizing?
Nextgrid 3y ago
> it was more than AI and Social media that made these things political, it was the political branches of government that made it so by mandates and rhetoric that pitted people against each other But social media did wonders at spreading & amplifying that message, since pitting people against each other in endless arguments generates lots of "engagement".
jfengel 3y ago
If it doesn't contain cowpox it's not a vaccine. Definitions are always strictly limited to their first use, and must be studiously maintained or we'll destroy the English language.

samatman 3y ago

The problem is that they are vaccines, "vaccine" doesn't mean what you think. The best vaccines are sterilizing, meaning that they prevent disease and transmission often enough that very high rates of vaccination extirpate the virus. It might be useful for discussion purposes if "vaccine" meant "sterilizing vaccine" and vaccines which don't work as well had some other name, but that's not how it works.

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>"vaccine" doesn't mean what you think. yes they keep changing the definition to include more and more things legally as "vaccines" are shielded from any liability so you can not sue big pharma if they injury with their "vaccine" this however does not change the fact that the way the law (and you) use the term is very very very different than what the ordinary person thinks and understands a vaccine to be When this person then discovers that the government uses a different (your) "correct" definition to include things they traditionally would not think of as a vaccine this erodes trust in the entire system. This was made very very clear with COVID.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  Nobody changed any definitions - laymen started becoming interested in the topic due to obvious reasons so the CDC and others clarified some publicly facing websites but nobody involved was remotely confused about the vaccines.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Non-immunizing treatments should not be called vaccines What do you consider immunizing?

Nextgrid 3y ago

> it was more than AI and Social media that made these things political, it was the political branches of government that made it so by mandates and rhetoric that pitted people against each other But social media did wonders at spreading & amplifying that message, since pitting people against each other in endless arguments generates lots of "engagement".

jfengel 3y ago

If it doesn't contain cowpox it's not a vaccine. Definitions are always strictly limited to their first use, and must be studiously maintained or we'll destroy the English language.